Laserfiche WebLink
<br />WESTERN <br />TATE <br />ATE <br /> <br />O('l.1i~'7Q <br />dtv - <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />July 8, 1994 <br />Issue No. 1051 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />orA <br />sc <br />A$C <br />F <br />I <br />L <br />E <br /> <br />TIlE WEEKLY NEWSLETI'ER OF TIlE WESTERN STATF$ WATER COUNCIL <br /> <br />Creekview Plaza, Suite A-201/942 East 7145 So./ Midvale, Utah 84047 / (801) 561-5300 / FAX (801) 255-%42 <br /> <br />Chairman - Dave Kennedy; Executive Director - Craig Bell; Editor - Ricky S. Torrey; Typist - Carrie Curvin <br /> <br />WATER RESOURCES <br /> <br />Colorado RiverJWater Banking and Marketing <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />On May 6, the Department of Interior released draft <br />regulations for administering entitlements to Colorado . <br />River water in the Lower Basin. The regulations will <br />involve three States and affect some 240 water user <br />organizations. Federal Register publication was <br />expected in June, but will likely be delayed until <br />August, pending completion of an in-house review <br />(WSW #1045). <br /> <br />The draft rule is intended to facilitate voluntary <br />water transfers and provide a framework to eliminate <br />unauthorized and wasteful uses. It includes criteria to <br />determine whether wells adjacent to the Colorado <br />River are subject to regulation by the Secretary of <br />Interior. It is estimated that more than 97% of the <br />annual water supply replenishing the alluvial aquifer <br />comes from the Colorado River. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The draft regulations give water users a due <br />process right to appeal any adverse finding or <br />determination with respect to prohibited uses. Further, <br />"The draft rule is intended to have pre-emptive effect <br />with respect to any state or 10c,!1 jurisdictions in the <br />determination of: (1) whether a water user who <br />withdraws water from wells subject to the rule is an <br />unauthorized user of Colorado user water; (2) the <br />determination and consequences of non-use, non- <br />beneficial use, unreasonable use, unauthorized use, or <br />unreported use of entitlements; and (3) minimum <br />conservation requirements." <br /> <br />The draft rules promote more efficient water use by <br />authorizing voluntary transfers, under stipulated <br />conditions, as well as banking and marketing of <br /> <br />banked water. The draft rules recognize extraordinary <br />conservation measures. or land. fallowing as a <br />beneficial use. Entitlement holders would be able to <br />store conserved water in Lake Mead, charge the <br />conserved water against their annual entitlement and <br />the apportionment of the state where the conservation <br />took place, and then treat the conserved and banked <br />water as non-Colorado River water that could be <br />marketed or used to repay any unintentional excess <br />use that may occur. Such water saved through <br />verifiable conservation measures generally would not <br />be subject to forfeiture or loss due to non-use. <br />However, banked water would be deemed "top water" <br />in Lake Mead, subject to release for flood control <br />purposes before Colorado River water. <br /> <br />Citing a number of legal authorities, the draft rule <br />reflects the Department's preliminary conclusion that <br />it is appropriate, without additional authority from <br />Congress, to' "include Indian reserved water rights in <br />the direct leasing and banking-marketing provisions of <br />the proposed regulations...," It states, "...Indian <br />reserved rights are transferable property rights which <br />have the potential to generate not only financial <br />benems, but also to create jobs, increase services, <br />and stimulate reservation economic growth." The draft <br />rule further states that off-reservation marketing of <br />Indian reserved rights is supported by the Supreme <br />Court's determination that, while Indian water rights <br />are set by the "practically irrigable acreage," test, <br />"reference to a quantity of water necessary to supply <br />the consumptive use required for irrigation...shall not <br />constitute a restriction on the usage of [water rights] <br />to irrigation or other agricultural application." Arizona <br />v. California, 429 U.S. 419, 422 (1979). The draft rule <br />continues, "The [C]ourt's explicit recognition that the <br />tribes are free to change the use of their water rights <br />to any purpose necessary to accomplish the <br />